Thursday, October 26, 2006

KC Johnson at Duke

( This post is in the old web log tradition: notes at the end of a busy day for others who know “the background.” John)

You know about KC and his extraordinary work reporting and commentating on what was first called “the Duke lacrosse case,” but which KC’s done so much to convince a growing number of people was a hoax that quickly became a witch hunt.

Tonight at Duke’s Bryan Student Center KC was on a panel with Larry Holt, Chair of Durham’s Human Relations Commission and Stephen Miller, Duke Chronicle columnist and Exec. Dir.of the Duke Conservative Union.

KC in person is just as impressive as he “appears” on your computer screen: organized, extraordinarily well-informed, and persuasive.

If you're asking whether his care and justice-seeking comes through in person, the answer is a resounding "Yes!"

His voice is pleasant.

Panel manners? He didn't "hog" time, interrupt the other panelists or engage in one-upmanship. I gave Professor Johnson an A+ for panel manners.

When KC spoke about Nifong’s procedural irregularities, Duke’s failures of duty and values, and the obvious innocence of the three students wrongly indicted, you couldn't miss his obvious belief in every word he spoke.

Almost all of what KC discussed tonight, he’s said in his posts. Still, it was powerful to hear him:

first, quote verbatim and identify by number five parts of the NC state bar’s Code of Professional Conduct;

and, then, to state by day, source and statements and/or actions just what Nifong did to violate the Code of Professional Conduct.

Remember how Nifong promised the court DNA results would exonerate the innocent and then when the results came back, he ignored them?

Remember how Nifong directed Durham Police Sgt. Mark Gottlieb to conduct an ID procedure that violated a number of the Durham Police Department’s own ID procedures, including failing to use "fillers" and telling the accuser she's be shown only photos of players who were at the party?

KC said Nifong’s conduct in those instances and others violates the bar’s Code of Professional Conduct, and will lead in time to Nifong’s being censured by the NC state bar.

KC said the NC bar has a tradition of not interfering in a case before it’s been resolved, but once that happens, he expects Nifong to be censured.

KC listed some of Duke’s failures when the hoax was first made public; and some of its failures right up to today. For example, the failure of just about every member of Duke’s Arts & Sciences Faculty to stand up for due process for its students when Durham Police entered dorm rooms without a search warrant.

But before KC could say much more about any of that, audience members were participating in the Q&A.

I’ll say more about that, the other panelists and some after Q&A discussion and interviews tomorrow or Saturday.

Tonight's event was sponsored by Duke’s ACLU chapter.

Final words on KC:

My Mother had her “acid test” for any new friend I’d tell her about.

“Yes, but is your friend the kind of person you could invite home for dinner?”
Folks, you can definitely invite KC home for dinner, unless you’re planning to serve prosecutorial misconduct with large sides of false news reporting and Duke silence, accompanied by a grand cru Brodhead ’88 grown on the Academy's left bank.

John

Update: Journalist and blogger Jon Ham has a very good "first take" on the event. Also, Locomotive Breath, one of the Triangle area's outstanding "citizen journalists" has a very good post at Free Republic.

Look in on them both

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thanks John, your comments are the only ones I can find so far. I would have loved to watch it on screen. Look forward to you telling us more.

Anonymous said...

kbp - more are here...

http://triangle.johnlocke.org/blog/

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1721830/posts?page=661#661

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the summary. Sounds like it was an interesting evening.
Not surprised to hear that KC is as impressive in person as he comes across in his blog. Thanks to all who continue to speak out for justice in this case.

Anonymous said...

But, "you" don't get it....too complex says the Chronicle...http://media.www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2006/10/27/Columns/Duke-Supports.Voter.Registration-2406770.shtml?sourcedomain=www.dukechronicle.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com

Thought the issue was three students getting railroaded by a DA but guess I was wrong...Two Duke degrees failed to help me understand the complexity of the issues...

Anonymous said...

anyone know what time the hearing is today?

Daddyx4 said...

wts:

i hope you are only attempting to be funny. the "editorial" in the chronicle is a nice little piece of college journalism. there is absolutely nothing really wrong with it - of course there isn't, there is so little said. the crack editorial staff are simply stating the obvious - at least, to anyone with a reasonable head on their shoulders. no - no one should fall into the trap of thinking that any serious issues in life are really as simple as "black-white" or "good-bad". no - bloggers are not immune from lesser quality contributors and hidden agendas...JUST like the msm. THIS is what the Chronicle chose to pen an editorial about? STOP THE PRESSES.

like i said - the article is not bad, but certainly contains nothing of substance. so, some bloggers are diligent, investigative and informed; others - not much better than your average joe next to the water cooler. of course, i don't know which bloggers are the latter. personally, i believe the editorial to be accurate only when speaking about blog "posters" NOT bloggers in general. of the blogs i have read re: the duke situation, i do not know of any which have been of the latter kind (and certainly not kcj, ls, or j-in-c).

one thing this editorial DID accomplish (although unintended) - although it has been much more fair and open-minded than most msm, the chronicle is STILL THE msm on campus; and, just like its counterparts in the big (i.e., real) world, it doesn't like being scooped or shown to be less than it thinks. thus, as it showed here - it is just as prone to envy and jealousy.

Anonymous said...

Why would anyone care what some 19 year old jealous kid writes in his college newspaper?
It's only a complex issue in the world of the politically correct.
To the rest of us, it's very, very simple.

JWM said...

N&O still refuses to answer

kbp,

Thanks for the nice words. I always appreciate them.

LB,

Thanks for the links.

Anon @8:03,

"Not surprised to hear that KC is as impressive in person as he comes across in his blog."

I'm right with you on that. Also, on this: "Thanks to all who continue to speak out for justice in this case."

Anon @10:31,

I'm sorry I didn't respond to you sooner. KC at Durham-in-Wonderland live blogged it.

wts,

You put some very bright "light" on the editors.

Anon @ 5:31,

We should care because they have some influence by virtue of their positions at The Chronicle and because its so sad that the editors accuse others of vilifying President Brodhead and being dangerous but not offer a single specific example to support those most serious charges.

It’s also very sad that they would tar all bloggers with the same broad brush.

As to how much one needs to know to comment on a matter I think it depends.

Certainly there are matters that require considerable study before one should comment.

On the other hand, how much study must a person do before that person – blogger or otherwise – “knows enough” to hear on TV and read of the racist taunts and threats Reade Seligmann endured on May 18 and say, “That’s very wrong?”

And then to ask: “Why aren’t Durham civic and religious leaders and Duke trustees, administrators, faculty and students should joining together to condemn those racist threats hurled at a young man?”

John

Anonymous said...

John: Great work, as usual. Your last question is a good one. Durham and university officials have much to answer for and much to be ashamed of. This prosecutorial abuse travesty needs to end now.